Is linux free 5028

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:57:18 -0400, Rick Moen

This is a threaded public forum - my contribution doesn't block your conversation with anyone else. But perhaps I'm missing some netiquette. Enlighten me if that's the case.

I don't see what relevance it has to what I have to say. We live on opposite sides of the world. Given that I'm doing nothing illegal and (I hope) nothing immoral, a consistent pseudonym is as good a means of identifying myself to you on the internet as any other.

From what I've observed you generally make an effort at diplomacy and civility. I wasn't intending to be self-righteous, I was remarking that your behaviour seemed uncharacteristic. If you were typically insulting I would have made no comment.

Appendix 1:

This agreement governs the use of the Software and any updates to the Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Subject to the following terms, Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") grants to the user ("Customer") a license to this collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License.

I did not bring up the kernel copyright in the first place and that is not what I wanted to respond to. But since you've prompted my opinion on that, the kernel is licenced under the GPL and since RedHat's licence-agreement-whatever you want to call it contravenes the terms of the GPL, it is prohibited from distributing the kernel (para 6 of the GPL).

That's something we probably all agree on.

GPL, paragraph 6: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein". Inarguably this is what RedHat's agreement does. Yes, it could and should restrict the terms within the context of service and maintenance, but it doesn't.

See above.

--